Myth and Model. The Pattern of Migration, Settlement, and Reclamation of Land in Central Mexico and Oaxaca Viola König Ethnologisches Museum – Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, Germany [email protected] Abstract: A comparison of the documentation in the pre-Hispanic and early colonial pic- torials and written texts from Central Mexico, Oaxaca and in between, shows parallels and a specic model for the settlement and the legitimation of land ownership. Migration from a mythic place of origin is followed by choice of the new homeland, which is ocially conrmed by the act of inauguration, i.e. a New Fire ceremony. Population growth leads to either the abandonment of a village or exodus of smaller groups, thus starting a new migration. e same procedure begins. e Mixtecs started as early as in the Classic period to migrate to Teotihuacan and later to Mexico Tenochtitlan as immigrant workers. ey were the rst to leave their Mixtec home- land in the 1970ies traveling to the USA and Canada. Today, Mixtec communities can be found in Manhattan and all over California. Keywords: migration; settlement; land ownership; Mixtec codices; pre-Hispanic and early colonial periods. Resumen: Una comparación de la documentación en los textos pictóricos y escritos pre- hispánicos y coloniales tempranos del centro de México, Oaxaca y las regiones intermedias, muestra paralelos y revela un modelo especíco para los procesos de asentamiento y la legi- timación de la propiedad de la tierra. La migración desde un lugar de origen mítico es seguida por la elección de un nuevo lugar de asentamiento, conrmada por un acto de inauguración, es decir, la ceremonia del Fuego Nuevo. El crecimiento de una población conduce al abandono de un pueblo o a un éxodo de grupos pequeños, iniciando así una nueva migración. Los mixtecas comenzaron ya en el período Clásico a emigrar a Teotihuacán y luego a México Tenochtitlan como trabajadores inmigrantes. Fueron los primeros en abandonar su patria mixteca en los años 70 viajando a Estados Unidos y a Canadá. Hoy en día, comunidades mixtecas se pueden encontrar en Manhattan y en toda California. Palabras clave: migración; asentamiento; propiedad de la tierra; códices mixtecos; periodo prehispánico y colonial temprano. Migrations in (Meso-)America from different perspectives Using selected examples of pre-Hispanic codices and early colonial lienzos and mapas from the Mixteca and Central Mexico, this contribution describes the model of a migra- tion and settlement pattern that has been regularly recorded, as well as passed down in the oral traditions, in Mesoamerica since Postclassic and early colonial times. It has its 160 Viola König Figure 1. Map of Mesoamerica (drawing: Renate Sander). roots far in the past. ere can be no doubt that the life of the early inhabitants of the Americas was profoundly inuenced by migration and settlement. e mythology of migration begins with the earliest human settlement of the American continents. e hypothesis that the Americas (which are a European construct, too) were settled from Asia is not contested by any European scholar, even though there is some disagreement as to the time of settlement and the number of waves of migration. Most recently, genetic analyses of bone material have been particularly useful in corroborating that thesis (National Geographic Society 2014). However, there are many uncertainties both with regard to dates and the quantitative scope of settlement (Hey 2005). Another controversial issue is the intensity of Asiatic-American contacts in the millennia prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the Pacic (Fitzhugh & Crowell 1988). e only ones who harbor doubts about the hypothesis of a migration from Asia to the Americas are Native Americans; referring to indigenous myths, they postulate Myth and Model. The Pattern of Migration, Settlement, and Reclamation of Land 161 an origin of the indigenous peoples on the American continent itself. ey feel vindi- cated by archaeological artifacts discovered in the southernmost part of the Americas, as well as by genetic evidence suggesting a rather recent migration from Asia to America.1 Indigenous myths from the Pacic Coast mention big oods and a rise or lowering of the sea level; this is supported by some archaeological hypotheses (Fedje & Christensen 1999; Fladmark 1979; Gruhn 1994; McLaren 2008). Another particularity of the settlement of the Americas, which supposedly took place in a north-south direction, invites reection as well: e settlement of the Ameri- can continents is said to have taken ‘no longer than’ 1,000 years (Yesner 2004: 202, 215). However, the most ancient skeleton nds suggest movements across the Americas, including migration in a south-north direction (Fitzhugh et al. 1999).2 e assessment of indigenous myths gives rise to tricky questions as well: What depth in time is preserved in traditions that have been passed down orally without hav- ing ever been recorded on any medium? To bolster the claims that several millennia are covered by oral traditions, myths are adduced which relate to real events, mentioning eruptions of volcanoes, the formation of craters, meteorite impacts, oods, etc. (geo- mythology). Examples include the Crater Lake, Oregon, in the myths of the Klamath people and meteorite impacts in Australia (Hamacher 2014; Piccardi & Mass 2007). In Mesoamerica, it is dicult to provide evidence of migration in the Classic and Formative periods on the basis of archaeological sites and discoveries alone. Transre- gional and transcultural connections are evident from the Formative/Preclassic period onward. While the core region of early Olmec culture was on the Gulf Coast (Veracruz and Tabasco), there is evidence of Olmec inuence in western Mesoamerica (Teopan- tecuanitlan, Guerrero) and Central Mexico (Tlatilco) (Diehl 2004). Metal-processing technologies reached Mesoamerica from Peru and Columbia (ear- liest evidence: Second millennium BC) as well as from Central America (by the end of the rst millennium AD). e Mixtec were masters not only of processing metal but also of iconographic advancement. For more than 1,000 years, they were renowned all over Mesoamerica for their goldsmithing skills (Jones 1985: 11-12). As far as the Classic period (200-600 AD) is concerned, there is evidence of multi- ethnic quarters (the Zapotecs of the ‘Oaxaca Barrio’) in the metropolis of Teotihuacan in the central Mexican highlands. is tradition continued up to the arrival of the Span- iards, as becomes evident from Mixtec objects found in the Templo Mayor of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan (Figure 2). e inuence of Teotihuacan (long-distance trade?) extended all the way to the Maya region. 1 One example of many is the link “Origins” (2013): <http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm> (27.08.2016); see also Christie 2009. 2 Includes a summary and suggestions for further reading. 162 Viola König Figure 2. Codex Vindobonensis obverse 38. 13 place bindings repre- sented by a knotted Mountain and 12 knots (drawing: Renate Sander). After the decline of the Classic metropolis, the Nonoalca and Tolteca migrated to central Mexico and founded Tula in the 10th century (Prem 2008: 21-23). e histories of migration, which were not only passed on from memory in oral traditions but also recorded pictographically, set in with these migrations. e Chichimecs, who came from the north somewhat later, attached importance to recorded memory too, both with regard to migration and the establishment of settlements. In Oaxaca and the Maya region, the mythic origin is associated with subsequent migration as well. However, people’s residence at their new places of settlement is not without chal- lenges; there are either internal conicts or attacks by outsiders. After several genera- tions, population growth leads to either the abandonment of the village or an exodus of smaller groups, thus initiating a new migration. e process repeats itself (König 2010: 125-133). From the Postclassic onward, creation stories and migration stories were recorded in large parts of Mesoamerica.3 But for what reason? And what was the purpose of these recordings? Can we comprehend, from the perspective of western 21st-century scholars, the motivations of indigenous Mesoamerican authors who had to adapt to a new situa- tion in colonial times? 3 For summaries of the situation see Florescano 2006 and Pohl 2003a. Myth and Model. The Pattern of Migration, Settlement, and Reclamation of Land 163 Pohl reminds us that “By and large, creation stories described the origins of the universe and in so doing accounted for the movements of peoples and their claims to land and property, [...] on the other hand were typically placed in post-creation times and blended factual accounts with mythic traditions” (Pohl 2003a: 61). As has been stated by the Lakota scholar Vine Deloria, Jr.: “Native creation myths, in contrast to the Jewish/Christian account of Genesis, are not about what happened ‘then’, they are about what happened ‘here’” (Deloria 1992: 78). e ‘here’ was always related to the ‘there’: In the Postclassic, Mixtecs, Chochos, Nahua-speaking Chichimecs, and other ethnic migrants moved both from the north to the south and from the south to the north. ere are accounts of this in pictographic records dated to the 12th century (Castañeda & Doesburg 2008; Wake 2007: 207). Cholula was a multiethnic center. e pre-Hispanic Mixtec codices mention alliances with the Zapotecs (Pohl 2003a). As becomes apparent from the archaeological record, the Mixtecs traditionally counted among the most mobile ‘migrant laborers’ (see above). ey were also among the rst to migrate to Mexico City around 1900, to the north of the republic from the 1940s onward, and to Canada in the 1970s (Durand, Mas- sey & Charvet 2000; Durand, Massey & Zenteno 2001). Migrations in the region of Mesoamerica were, therefore, by no means complete when the early colonial period set in. Since the last third of the 20th century, there has again been large-scale migration in a south-north direction.